Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I support the submission made by the Northbridge Progress Association.

I am writing this submission because I am very concerned about the Beaches Link Tunnel plans and how they impact our local community and local school, Seaforth Public School.

Earlier plans for the tunnel – shared with the Seaforth Public school community – indicated that the school's tunnel entrance would be further away. The Environmental Impact Statement shows the tunnel entrance, including 12 lanes of traffic, smokestack and related construction works, with impacts for air quality, noise and vibration, will be directly parallel with the school.

This goes against assurances given to the school community after engaging constructively in the community consultation process.

There is a lack of clarity on which route spoil trucks will take, though there is clarity about their massive volume – as frequently as one every 1-2 minutes at peak construction. I am concerned these will be disruptive for learning at Seaforth Public, other nearby schools, such as NBSC Balgowlah Boys and local residents working from home.

Most importantly, while modelling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the school area, that is based on expected traffic patterns. Actual traffic patterns will depend on many factors, such as whether good public transport options created through well-designed and well-used express bus services through the tunnel, which have yet to be determined. The planned privatisation of NSW bus services adds more uncertainty and cause concern for that factor.

International studies have shown the dangers to health, particularly in children, that being near many open lanes of traffic increases asthma and impacts child brain development. This project would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near the school, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smokestack.

We should not take a chance for the health and safety of children in our community.

Planning Minister, Rob Stokes, during his time as Education Minister, said: "I won't be party to putting stacks near kids … There is no way in hell that I'd support any development­ that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk".

I expect Minister Stokes and the NSW Government to live up to that commitment.

Earlier plans, noted in the Environment Impact Statement, made it clear that alternative arrangements are possible which position the tunnel entrance further North up Burnt Bridge Deviation. Those plans would ensure that all traffic is within the tunnel before it reaches the school, providing air quality safety no matter what the eventual traffic patterns will be.

I call on you to keep your commitment to the school and local community and change to other design options that ensure child, community safety and retain our local flora and fauna.

Thank you for your time and attention.

To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before covid. therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.
2. the 'beaches tunnel' has been declared "worlds best practice', however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, this is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. this effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools.
10. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. the toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as northbridge baths, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as concerned Nth Balgowlah resident about the current plans for the Beaches Link Tunnel and how they impact the local community. Specifically, and most importantly, while modeling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the Nth Balgowlah area, that is based on expected traffic patterns. Actual traffic patterns will depend on many factors, such as whether good public transport options are created through well-designed and well-used express bus services through the tunnel, which have yet to be determined. The planned privatisation of NSW bus services adds more uncertainty for this factor.
International studies have shown the dangers to health, particularly in children, of being near many open lanes of traffic. This includes increases in asthma and impacts on child brain development. This project would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near Seaforth school, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smoke stack.
We should not take risks when it comes to child health and safety. This was the position expressed by Planning Minister Rob Stokes, when he was Education Minister, stating: “I won’t be party to putting stacks near kids … There is no way in hell that I’d support any development¬ that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk”. We ask Minister Stokes and the NSW Government to live up to that commitment and if at a very minimum, put world class air filters on them.
Further, the creek that runs down under Burnt Bridge Deviation will be severely impacted by cutting the water flow off under the new plans which will have significant impact on the local flora, fauna and the water flows to Manly lagoon. We ask that this very important ecological stream not be impacted by the construction in any way.
Lastly, the current noise reduction erected walls do not cover all of the open road that backs onto the Western side of the creek that borders Burnt Bridge Deviation where the newly proposed tunnel is planned. We ask that new walls are put in place to shield residence of Serpentine Cres, from construction and traffic noise.

Thanks for your consideration.

To Whom it may concern, NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment

Re: Submission to the Northern Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

My name is Benjamine Duncan, and I am a resident directly impacted by the Flat Rock Gully dive construction site. I work full time in the public sector, have two kids who attend the local Willoughby Public School, am involved in the local community through local bush care and Scouting groups and as a family we use the sports and bushland amenities surrounding the Willoughby Leisure Centre daily.
I would like to express my deep concerns and object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection Major Project. I would like my position as a local resident, community member and mother of young children from the community to be noted and adequately responded to as part of the Environmental Impact Statement and Community consultation processes.
I seek for Transport NSW and DPIE to ensure the EIS to be reissued for public consultation including:
1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed
2) A comparative mass transit alternative assessment
3) A business case which justifies travel times claimed, re-assesses surface traffic impact and includes fully scoped costs

Specifically, I request:
1. This public mass transportation study be conducted to assess alternative options and published for public consultation.
2. The project wastewater plan needs to identify which additional methods other than or in addition to, sedimentation only, to ensure that the full range of dangerous chemicals identified are carefully removed before entering the harbour.
3. Northbridge Baths should be marked as receptor points when assessing human health.
4. Transport NSW to use locally relevant information to make decisions (i.e. air monitoring in Willoughby and Naremburn areas) and install filtration systems to stacks that will limit pollution in the tunnel operational phase
5. All temporary construction structures will need to be removed and the area fully rehabilitated with trees and green spaces rehabilitated in-situ (no offsets off site).
6. A permanent acoustic wall built along Flat Rock Drive and the Traffic Management Plan should prescribe trucks be fitted with noise and pollution control devices.

Please note my objections to the beaches link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection based on the following points:

1. Public Transport

I do not understand how in 2021, the state thinks it is a good idea to spend $15billion of public funds to finance a tunnel which will incentivise individual car traffic, via an inequitable toll road system which does not include a public transport solution? Why? In a time when local councils declare climate emergencies, the NSW state government committed to net zero by 2050 and when electric transport infrastructure is making great progress. Why are public transport solutions such as B’line buses network and rail solutions been left out? The business case to solve the traffic congestion issue did not provide a comparison of this project to a mass transport alternative in terms of impact to local traffic, biodiversity, disruption, climate, waste, contamination, air pollution and effectiveness as a congestion solution. This public mass transportation study is critical and it should be published for public consultation and assessed in the decision making process for this project.
2. Waterways Contamination
The Flat Rock gully dive site is located on a former landfill site, containing asbestos. It is not an appropriate site for tunnelling construction activities. In fact, the risk of contaminants moving down from the tip site as the capping is disturbed and pockets of leachate are released has not been assessed in terms of risks to Human Health and yet the EIS acknowledges the risk of run off to surrounding waterways and Middle Harbour.
Large amounts of wastewater will be produced from both construction and operational activities. Wastewater will be treated locally and flushed down creeks (117,000 L per day will be released down Flat Rock Creek via Tunks Park and 296,000 L down Willoughby Creek from the Cammeray Site via Primrose Park). Contaminants are present in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds. The project wastewater plan needs to identify which additional methods other than or in addition to, sedimentation only, to ensure that the full range of dangerous chemicals identified are carefully removed before entering the harbour.
In addition, Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour and many of them have been found above ‘safe levels’ (Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling was conducted, and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants were found that are harmful to human health. I am concerned about this given my kids use middle harbour for recreational canoeing and regularly swim at Northbridge baths. Therefore, Northbridge Baths should be marked as receptor points when assessing human health. Given that Northbridge is placed between the Flat Rock contaminated dive site and the Middle Harbour contaminated site during construction and between 3 unfiltered emissions stacks when operational it would be appropriate for a specific health assessment to be completed.
3. Air emissions
I am concerned to live in an area where air pollution is already below standard. This project will only make air pollution worse given it is opting for unfiltered stacks, in fact CR25 Artarmon Sues Childcare: (Closest point to Willoughby Leisure Centre/ Bicentennial Reserve) – Max 24hr PM2.5 increases if all projects go ahead. This represents the largest increase of 24hr PM2.5 across the project. I live 200m away from Sue’s Chilcare. Unfiltered stacks are not “global best practice”. Particulate Matter is already higher than what is recommended or considered safe - PM2.5 and PM10 levels are already above the guidelines for both the 24-hour average and the annual average (including the 2025 goal set by NEPC (2016). The government has a duty of care to do what it can to reduce these PM2.5 and PM10 air emissions levels, use locally relevant information to make decisions (i.e. air monitoring in Willoughby and Naremburn areas) and install filtration systems that will limit pollution in the tunnel operational phase.
4. Bushland impacts
During 2020, I have been able to observe a significant increase in the use of the bushland area surrounding the Willoughby Leisure Centre. People are exercising more and using green space as a remedy from stress and anxiety caused by the pandemic. The increase use of space combined with growing population and greater density of housing (Channel 9 site on Artamon Road is being redeveloped at the same time as this project to add residential stock to the area) are likely to create significant pressure on remaining green space.
The project is in direct contradiction of the NSW Premier’s Priorities of Greener Public Spaces and Greening our City.
The local community want to see the bushland re-established after the project to locally indigenous vegetation and habitat. All temporary construction structures will need to be removed and the area fully rehabilitated. Decision making about the future of the dive site at Flat Rock Gully should not be left to the end of the consultation process and should involve the community. The EIS should confirm its rehabilitation and return to bushland. All removed trees should be replaced with mature trees and the use of offsite biodiversity offsets should not be allowed on this site.
5. Noise Pollution
I am also deeply concerned by the noise of traffic on Flat Rock Drive from construction trucks air brakes as they slow down the long hill leading to the excavation site entry point at the bottom, and then the exhaust and engine noise from those fully loaded trucks accelerating up the hill when exiting from the dive site. I would like to see a permanent acoustic wall built along Flat Rock Drive and the Traffic Management Plan should prescribe trucks be fitted with noise and pollution control devices given the highly residential nature of the route and the large proportion of children living and using locate recreational amenities in the direct area surrounding Flat Rock dive site.

To conclude I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection going ahead for all the reasons outlined above. The EIS should be reissued for public consultation again when all the relevant modelling and impact assessments are more clearly documented.

We live in Cammeray with our two daughters, one of whom attends Anzac Park Public School and the other attends a local small daycare in Crows Nest.

I wish to lodge my objections to the Beaches Link tunnel because the Environmental Impact Statement is out of date with much of it written before COVID-19 pandemic changed our way of living significantly, some of which will permanently rewrite how we choose to move about the city.

The data with respect to travel time is no longer current post-COVID as there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. Many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-COVID EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.

As both Northern Beaches Residents and owners of Sydney Harbour Kayaks, located at The Spit Bridge, we strongly object to the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel.
1. The broader view
We live in an era where reducing emissions should be a top priority. We should be looking for ways to reduce the number of cars travel across our city, rather than spending 12 billion on a tunnel aimed at increasing traffic. It would seem little has been done in exploring alternative transport solutions, such as better public transport across the Northern Beaches.

As the operators of a kayak tour and rental business we know first hand from anecdotal evidence from our customers that many locals do not plan to return to travelling to the city five days a week once life returns to a new normal post Covid. We do not support the expense of 12 billion dollars on a project that is out of line with modern environmental values.


2. As residents
We live in Allambie Heights, close to Manly Dam where we exercise on a daily basis. We are extremely concerned on the long term environmental effects that the building of the tunnel will have on our local area, including the removal of a large number of trees and fauna and the impacts on wildlife, including several protected species.

We have a son at NBSC Balgowlah Boys and are opposed to the unfiltered emission stacks being placed so close to schools, and to public sporting spaces.

We are opposed to the pollution, noise and extra traffic that will be generated in our local area for around five years during the building of the tunnel.

We do not believe there has been any thought put into the traffic and parking chaos that will ensure on our local roads and surrounds throughout the Northern Beaches that are ill equipped to deal with the extra inflow of extra traffic, particularly on weekends.

3. As business owners
We are the owners of Sydney Harbour Kayaks at The Spit Bridge, Mosman. We run a kayak tours, rental and retail business, and we are hugely concerned of the impact the building of the Beaches Link Tunnel will have on our business during the five to seven years of works.

a) The steel and concrete tunnel tubes which are to be fabricated on a large pontoon stationed at Spit Reserve West, with tubes constructed on small stilts on the bed of Middle Harbour, will be placed just across the road from our business and likely to considerably alter the ambience of this beautiful area of water. We are concerned about noise and pollution from this site and the impacts it might have on the public choosing to kayak in Middle Harbour throughout this time.

b) Likewise we are concerned about the erection of coffer dams and the use of barges in Middle Harbour, from Clive Park across to Seaforth Bluff. One of our most popular kayak tours, the Sydney Harbour Kayaks Eco Tour, which has been a consistent bread and butter earner for our business in its 30 years of operation, passes through this point, where we stop to talk about the Aboriginal carvings at Clive Park. The erection of coffer dams and works barges in the area will significantly impact our eco tours which have to pass through this area on the way to the mangroves of Bantry Bay.


c) In its response to the Beaches Link EIS the Northern Beaches Council states that a marine traffic exclusion zone will be set up around cofferdams, silt curtains and tube tunnel support piles, which will reduce the width of the navigation channel in an area busy with recreational marine traffic, as many boat users access the harbour via the boat ramp at Davidson Park. This will make it potentially hazardous for kayakers, having to navigate a reduced channel busy with boat traffic.

d) It also states in the Northern Beaches Council’s response to the EIS that monitoring for the building of the tunnel in Middle Harbour does not include marine ecology. There are a number of endangered species in Middle Harbour, including the white seahorse and the black rockcod. We are always proud to show our pristine waters to our customers as we showcase beautiful Middle Harbour and we are devastated that such delicate ecologies are now threatened due to the building of the tunnel.

e) Furthermore the high possibility of silt leaching contaminants into the waters of Middle Harbour during dredging would not only be highly destructive to the sensitive ecological environment, but it would make the area unsuitable for swimming, and less appealing to visitors which would have a damaging effect on our business.

From our standpoint as residents and business owners we demand that there be a full review into the Beaches Tunnel Link and that this hugely expensive project be further examined as to its viability in response to traffic issues, and its impact on the environment be properly evaluated in proportion to its limited benefits to road users.

Kate Lovelace and Shannon O’Brien

I write to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I have done my best to read the extensive EIS documents at this very difficult time. I have significant concerns about the justification for this project particularly given that the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety and an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

1. The timing of release of this project at the end of what has been a very challenging year. This project impacts a large number of schools and passes through highly residential areas. Families, community groups and schools have been under a huge amount of strain throughout the exhibition stage. School P&C’s did not have the opportunity to review the documents and parents were caring for children on school holidays. Due to restrictions, there has not been the opportunity to attend community group discussions for residents to meet and discuss their concerns in person. I feel that some local residents still do have the information they require to understand the potential impact of project. The project should be re-exhibited well after the COVID-19 crisis has passed and when normal life returns and when we understand the permanent changes that it has made to travel and commuting patterns on our roads and public transport.

2. I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces.
Since contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully, there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds. This is of great concern to me since I am a local Naremburn resident regularly using the surrounding parks and bike paths with my family. Every opportunity to preserve our greenspace should be taken to protect the local trees and wildlife and to maintain the leisure opportunities of local families for physical and mental health benefits.

I am also concerned that silt curtains don’t go all the way to the seabed as there is a risk of contamination
release into Middle Harbour with sedimentation diagrams showing a wide spread of sedimentation deposits. My husband and two young boys regularly visit places such as Northbridge Baths and Clontarf beach and also frequently kayak around Middle Harbour so the threat of contamination affecting these areas is frightening and heartbreaking. We would be devastated if these places were not safe or accessible in the future. In addition, the Northbridge Peninsular and Northbridge Baths have not been marked as receptor points when assessing human health. Given that Northbridge is placed between the Flat Rock contaminated dive site (where up to 7 roadheaders will be in operation) and the Middle Harbour contaminated site during construction and between 3 unfiltered emissions stacks when operational I feel it would be appropriate for a specific health assessment to be completed.

3. I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on the Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction and operation because Particulate Matter (PM) is already higher than what is recommended or considered “safe” - PM2.5 and PM10 levels are already above the guidelines for both the 24-hour average and the annual average (including the 2025 goal set by NEPC (2016). However there is no local data for this and data from the temporary monitor put in place to establish our background levels at Naremburn was not used. Only long term monitoring has occurred in Chullora, Earlwood and Liverpool away from the project footprint.

I am concerned about the location of unfiltered stacks in close proximity to schools such as R17 KU Pre-School Green Park and CR18 Cammeray Public School. This directly affects my children’s wellbeing as they are expected to attend these schools in future. The government has a duty of care to reduce as much as possible PM levels for the health of the next generation therefore I believe more research into filtering the stacks or providing other alternatives should be carried out.

Another concern at Flat Rock Drive is the noise generated from truck air brakes as they slow down the long hill leading to the excavation site entry point at the bottom, and then the exhaust and engine noise from those fully loaded trucks accelerating up the hill from the site. This site is in close proximity to my house and so the noise pollution along with the inevitable traffic, delays and wear and tear on the roads will no doubt directly affect our day to day lives at our home and also our travel around our local area in a negative way.

I hope aspects of this project are researched further and reconsidered with an emphasis on protecting our local surrounding area by reducing environmental impact on our greenspace, waterways, wildlife and residents for the greater good of our wonderful local community.

I object to tge project as it will destroy diversity in flat rock gully, an urban piece of paradise.

The environmental impact statement confirms :

The Beaches Link will negatively impact significant wildlife corridors, including Flat Rock Drive and Manly Dam bushland, and marine ecosystems at Middle Harbour and the Spit. 23 threatened species will be negatively impacted. Hundreds of other species will also lose their habitat, be cut off from bushland, or be driven away - birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals. There will be potential contamination of creeks and the harbour threatens land and marine ecosystems. Mitigation measures are inadequate - most animals cannot be moved, and biodiversity offsetting will not stop local wildlife

What to Object to:

Urban bushland is fast disappearing under Sydney’s bulldozers. For the future of the urban environment, we can no longer afford to put construction sites, with all their impacts, in biodiversity rich areas. The proposed project counteracts the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental consideration (PEAA Act Part 3(2)(c)).

Bushland set aside for environmental protection should not be destroyed or disturbed. Flat Rock Reserve is a declared Wildlife Protection Area as it provides significant habitats that support a wide range of small birds, mammals, reptiles and frogs that are disappearing from our urban areas. Flat Rock Gully is a key part of the network of wildlife corridors across Sydney required to maintain biodiversity. Around 6.77 hectares (over 16 acres) of bushland will be flattened for the construction footprint (EIS Chapt. 19, p.19.9) at Flat Rock Gully. Around 54 acres of bushland, which provides important habitat for wildlife in the Willoughby and Manly local government areas, will be destroyed at the combined sites. Over 390 trees are targeted for potential destruction at Flat Rock Gully – only two-thirds will be replaced. Local tree policies are required by the NSW Government to reflect the needs of different areas for tree canopy and wildlife

Biodiversity is poorly scoped in the EIS. The bulk of the biodiversity assessment concentrates and comments on 23 threatened species only. It side-steps the many hundreds of species which will lose their habitat, be driven away or bulldozed under including a wide range of bird species, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals. A full study of wildlife has not been, and will not be, carried out in Flat Rock Gully, Middle Harbour and nearby bushland.

The EIS acknowledges that animals and birds on the construction footprint and nearby bush reserves will be driven away, in some cases permanently, by loss of habitat, food and breeding sites and by the noise, lights, vibration and traffic yet there are few well-developed mitigation plans for the variety of species which will be impacted. (EIS p.19-64). The proposed mitigation measures to protect wildlife during construction are weak. Checking that no animals are in the way 24 hours before construction or having people ‘spot’ them from barges and remove them during construction seems doomed to failure as it will not be the main focus or within the expertise of most constructors.

The health of local creeks, waterways and the marine environments are at risk from scouring, elevated salinity, siltation, contamination by disturbed toxic materials from the tip site and accidental fuel or chemical spills. Groundwater drawdown of more than 20 metres will contribute to trees becoming stressed or dying in other parts of Flat Rock Gully away from the construction footprint, especially in times of drought. Excavation of Middle Harbour sediment has the potential to release heavy metals, pesticides and tributyltin, a chemical used in cleaning boats, which has been banned since 2008 as it causes sex changes in marine organisms.

Thus please consider the following changes:

● Carry out full assessment of biodiversity in and around area to be destroyed in Flat Rock Gully. Check trees for hollows across the gully area. Carry out fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in creeks and waterways.

● In consultation with wildlife experts, develop a full suite of mitigation measures to protect the wildlife in local bushland from noise, light and traffic in Flat Rock Gully.

Ensure all landfill exposed by tunnelling is capped at the end of tunnelling and reinstate crushed sandstone as a contoured base for re-establishment of locally indigenous vegetation and habitat. Remove all temporary structures (including noise mitigation sheds).

Engage consultants (independent of contractors) to measure water quality in the creek before, during and after construction to check for scouring, contamination from the site and elevated salinity and sediment levels. Make this information publicly available.

● Include clear strategies in the EIS to counteract the release of contaminants into Middle Harbour following storms or due to silt curtain damage during construction.

As a parent and local resident, I object to the Northern Beaches Link and freeway upgrades due to the negative impact these projects will have on the health of my children and many other local residents, both from pollution and risk of contamination of local areas during construction, but also due to the unfiltered stacks being constructed very close to our home and our children’s schools. Air pollution from unfiltered stacks - 3 massive 30 metre high UNFILTERED smoke stacks to be built within Artarmon/Cammeray/ North Sydney freeway corridor which will cause higher than safe levels of particulate matter (PM 2.5 and others) to impact 12 local schools including Cammeray P.S. plus preschools nearby. I object to the 4500m3 of spoil which will be allowed to be stored outside sheds at Cammeray according to the EIS, not far from our home. I also object to the high level of risk identified around the Warringah Freeway of serious contaminants entering the area and also at the Cammeray Mega Construction site. The testing results have not been published and the risk is radically under-assessed given the sensitive users of the area (both the young and the not so young). I demand the risks be published with transparency, and that filtered stacks are considered and the business case for and against them is shown with transparency (if they filter stacks overseas, why aren’t we doing it here?). If this project does go ahead, at the very least, ban diesel trucks in the tunnels [Stockholm], and do real time monitoring of air pollution near schools and sports grounds to alert us if pollution hits dangerous levels.

As a long term resident of Northbridge with 3 children, I am concerned about this submission on the following grounds:
* We use Flat Rock drive daily and am concerned for the safety of drivers and pedestrians. The sheer volume of additional vehicle movements which will be on the road presents a significant safety risk.
* Our family enjoys walking through flat rock gully regularly. We are concerned about noise, emissions, lack of access.
* I ride from Northbridge thru Flat Rock Gully to work at Royal North Shore Hospital 3 times a week. Concerned at the impact on safety and accessibility during construction.
* Impact on air quality due to unfiltered emissions.
* Environmental impact of waste discharge and contaminated spoil to local land and creeks.
I request please the EIS to be reissued for public consultation with a:
​1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed
2) A comparative mass transit alternative assessment
3) A business case which justifies travel times claimed, re-assesses surface traffic impact and includes fully scoped costs
​

I support the submission of the Northbridge Progress Association on each and every item..
I am particularly also concerned about:
- exposing latent contamination and the re-disposal of it
- traffic. On Strathallen avenue at peak hour on weekdays and also on Saturday's it is already significantly jammed all the way up to Eastern Valley Way and Alpha rd and it is extremely difficult to get out of our road without any other way out . The changing behaviour of traffic due to the works can only exacerbate the current problems. Collateral increased obstruction is of increased significance fr any construction work for improving properties in our areas.
- At my age of 83 years I find a minimum period of 5 years of such disruption confronting

I oppose the project based on the following grounds
Work sites at Kirkwood St
There will need to be a guarantee given to the residents by the TFNSW that the residents of Seaforth near the Wakehurst parkway will have the ability to work with TFNSW and the chosen contractor that the work site BL12 is detailed to ensure that any noise and privacy concerns are addressed prior to the erection of this site.
Parking impacts during build period
It was indicated during the interactive sessions that Parking overflow would be an issue for sites BL12 and 13 that it would be up the residents and council to resolve any issues. This is unacceptable and the parking issue will need to be addressed during the ongoing details as the contract is prepared for the as the mayhem that the amount of light vehicle required on the site and the limited parking will mean that contractors will be parking in residential streets. The streets in this location are narrow and the corners are not visible at some acute angle intersections. I have seen near misses during sporting events where parking has been a major issue and with the influx of vehicles to the area, this will be a concern.
Business Case
The business case for the Beaches Link Tunnel has never had any details published regarding its use vs its expense to build. We are concerned that the business case remains confidential and the state government can determine to proceed even if the business case does not stack up. The funds could be better invested in alternative solutions. I oppose this project until the business case details are made public.
Pollution
The pollution that the two emission stacks will emit on the suburb is a concern. We moved to this area of Sydney to get out of the inner city and these two stacks will undoubtedly emit further concentrated pollution, no matter what the experts are stating within the EIS. The only solution that would be acceptable is that both of the portals are filtered to worlds best practice like the tunnels in other parts of the world. The emission details in the EIS are of little consolation should there be a medical issue arise from the emissions of these tunnels. The major concern is also with relation to the level of the Balgowlah stack. It is in a valley and I cannot believe that the emissions will disperse high enough to not have an impact on the pour souls in the vicinity.
Traffic concerns
With the build lasting 6 years, the increase in traffic throughout the suburb is a concern. With all of the heavy and light vehicle movements there is a significant risks of accidents and potential injury or deaths.
Destruction of the Wakehurst parkway
It was noted in the EIS that there will be significant de vegetation of the Wakehurst Parkway. This will no doubt impact on the Manly Dam reserve with negative impact due to run off and the impacts to wildlife in the already threatened area. Added to this is the size and scale of the ventilation facility. Im not sure how TFNSW will be able to integrate this into a bushland setting without destroying the look of the area and as it site on top of the ridge line, it will be viewed many kilometers away as an eyesore on the horizon
Impact to the local Burnt Bridge Creek
It was noted in the EIS that they will be a reduction in ground water to the local creeks leading down the Queenscliff lagoon. This is a major concern as this creek creates an ecosystem of fauna and flora that makes the location special for the locals and if the Creek suffers as a result this will leave a negative legacy for my children, grandchildren and other members of the community who enjoy walking through the creek along the pathways. This feature makes this area special and the potential of the creek becoming a victim of this project is a huge concern. We chose to live here for these special features and feel like the government is hunting us down to take away what natural surroundings we have left.
Stress.
The stress that this project has caused our family and community is immense. There have also been financial impacts to us since this project was announced along with other members of the community. The mental stress about what is coming is constant and very hard on everyone. I would like to see the decision makers of this project in government go through the stress of this project so they can see what we have had to put up with.

As a local parent and resident, who regularly works from home, I object to the increased noise pollution that the construction and operation of the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link projects will create. The EIS states that the area North of the golf course in Cammeray will experience noise above acceptable noise limits across the duration of the project - this is where our home and my home office is located. Anzac Park School, Anzac Park, Cammeray Oval and KU Preschool (Green Park) will be noise affected above acceptable limits across various stages of the project. Noise from the Warringah Freeway works will impact 1917 receiver buildings between Cammeray and Naremburn during the project, which will include our home and many local recreation areas and green spaces that we utilise. I would ask that this project be halted, or at the very least, that temporary noise walls during the construction phase and permanent noise walls be erected at completion of the project, covering the entire freeway corridor, to protect us from greater than acceptable limits for these projects. I would also ask that trucks should be fitted with noise and pollution control devices given the highly residential nature of the route and the large proportion of children in the vicinity of the project.

The project being proposed by the NSW government in conjunction with TransUrban is a poorly designed solution to a problem that existed 10 years ago and is only now being addressed.
The Northern Beaches can be accessed by three routes; the Spit, Mona Vale road and Roseville bridge. These are constantly a cause of traffic jams and become major bottlenecks during peak hour traffic especially. The obvious solution would be to have more roads, but the question that arises is "is this the solution we should be looking for?". We need to double the capacity of the roads yesterday if we are to address the problem of private cars using and avoid them causing delays. The real solution however, should be focusing on what changes we can make to reduce the number of cars on the roads, while giving people access between the beaches and the CBD, rather than looking at how we can increase the number of cars on the roads and afford to build such gargantuan proposals

Building a tunnel in the middle of an active main route to the city for half of the Northern Beaches will cause significant traffic disruption and cause far more delays for the foreseeable future, than it will make up for in the future. Businesses have learnt to adapt during Covid and allow for workers to partake in their jobs from home, negating the need to travel into the city. If a similar obstacle is presented in the form of a poorly thought out tunnel then it will only serve to encourage companies to adapt to the situation and rethink the need for their employees to travel at all.

By building a tunnel to increase traffic capacity, the government is actively encouraging more privately owned cars to be driven on the roads. Not only is this a poor use of resources but it is a step in the wrong direction for a government that is so proud to show off their environmental stance while cutting funding to the RFS and imposing a plan for a climate change speedway onto their population. The obvious answer to this problem is not to perpetuate the problem of running out of room for cars on roads, but rather focus on ride-sharing instead. Increase the capacity of the bus network and make more useful routes to people who live away from the main roads and you will add a fraction of the buses and reduce a large component of the congestion that drivers experience everyday.

A car can hold 5 people, it will take up a third of the space of a bus. In an unlikely scenario, consider that 15 people could arrive in the city in 3 personal cars and would need to find parking, pay ~$15 in tolls all together and will take upwards of an hour to arrive at their destination. Compare this with a singular B-Line bus also filled to capacity; with 86 seats and 15 standing spots, you are able to transport over 100 people to the city (according to transport NSW website), without the hassle of having to find parking, and while generating over $400 on average (based upon a mix of adult and concession opal fares for a full bus from transport NSW website).

Not only does the proposed "solution" provide an environmental and economic mess for the population of Northern Sydney, the construction itself is proposed to last for 10 years, with all likelihood of it stretching out alongside the budget according to the track record of the current NSW government. There will be trucks running in and out of the ground for many years, causing tonnes and tonnes of greenhouse gases, there will be destruction of habitat for flying foxes, wallabies, echidnas, birds and other native wildlife next to Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation Road and along Wakehurst Parkway extending into Manly Dam. There will be damage to the waterways on both sides of the parkway as run off from the roads has been planned on a very low estimate of rainfall and does not account for the "maybe" of a surprise weather or natural event. It would seem reasonable for one to assume that the government would begin to consider that these "maybes" are real possibilities after 5.3 million hectares (6.7% of the state according to the APH) and nearly 30 000 people have been infected with the Covid-19 virus in our state alone and that with an increasing population our world is sure to see more of these "unpredictable" events.

While these may only be minor points in the government's eyes, it highlights the lack of work that has been put into this proposal. Basing the plan of an outdated solution to an old problem on old or data for traffic that has been gathered during Covid-19 does not reflect the needs that Sydney has, as of right now. There needs to be a greater focus on moving people from homes to jobs without leaving the stain of the 2021 Liberal NSW government on the landscape of our beautiful country. The population of NSW implores the government to employ the creative solutions that are so often highly sought after and celebrated in the education system and other countries, rather than destroy the land to sink money, resources and time into the ground.

I wish to object to the Beaches Link tunnel.
I am a resident of Kirkwood Street, Seaforth. I have concerns about the impact of the project on residents. These include noise and vibrations during the construction period and the lack of parking facilities for workers (meaning that the local streets will be filled with workers' cars). The tunnel will provide few benefits for nearby residents, since Kirkwood Street residents won't be able to access the tunnel (they will have to drive to the other access point at Burnt Bridge deviation) . It is absurd that the tunnel does not have a dedicated bus lane and, for local residents to use buses, they will have to walk half a kilometre up the Wakehurst Parkway. The tunnel should be improving public transport options, not limiting them.
I am very concerned about the lack of filtration of the tunnel emissions and the effect on residents' health. I am also very concerned about the clearing of bushland in the vicinity. Whilst the bush between Kirkwood Street and Wakehurst Pkwy (near Burnt St) is not currently targeted for clearing, there is a danger that this will occur when the tunnel is complete. We were drawn to the neighbourhood because of the bushy outlook and quiet streets, and that will all be dramatically changed.
The environmental impact of the tunnel is very negative, including on the nearby Manly Dam. The cost of the tunnel is disproportionate to whatever benefits it may bring, particularly with the increase of people working from home.
The site on Kirkwood Street which is dedicated for office work, should be moved further up the Wakehurst Parkway, away from houses and residents.

I object to this project for several reasons:

1. Cost-benefit analysis modelled pre-COVIX

Existing traffic data used in the EIS was sourced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (page 3-5) and no serious attempt has been made to assess the implications of COVID-19 (such as the massive long-term shift to working from home and the huge reduction in immigration and hence population growth in the EIS area) on critical traffic demand factors.

At page 3-3 there is this a highly simplistic statement, without any source reference and without any attempt to provide a view on traffic demand in the Project area: In Greater Sydney, traffic levels on most roads have returned to those experienced before NSW Government restrictions for COVID-19 were put in place. This indicates a relatively rapid response to the event by the city, and suggests that the movement of people, goods and services and demand for road capacity is returning to conditions similar to those prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

My anecdotal experience is that current Balgowlah to North Sydney/CBD traffic levels are running at very significant reduced levels versus pre-COVID. Real trip times for my bus (170X – Manly to Wynyard) are currently typically 10 minutes or more early than timetable. And with:

• the current reductions in CBD working hours certain to remain permanent to a substantial effect
• public transport use extremely likely to increase following COVID-19 vaccination

having been ignored in the EIS, it suffers a gaping hole in this regard. It would be financially irresponsible to proceed with the Project in these circumstances.

2. Active transport infrastructure underwhelming

The Project as outlined in the EIS fails to project any vision for active transport. For example, at page E-4 there are references to ‘providing improvements to walking and cycling routes’. Most of the statements in the EIS are to merely improving routes. In truth, very little new active transport routes are proposed.

No genuine attempt has been made to use the opportunity given by the Project to include some spectacular new active transport routes for the EIS area as a whole and surrounding suburbs from where people drive, including woefully inadequate areas such as Seaforth to the Spit.

Provision in the Project for active transport in the Balgowlah and Wakehurst Parkway areas is hugely disappointing for a $14b scheme. While the proposed new dedicated shared walking and cycle path along Wakehurst Parkway from Seaforth to Frenchs Forest is welcomed, this can and should be delivered in any event, whether or not the Project proceeds. The lack of any detail around the path and the fact that it is shared rather than separate walking and cycling trail suggest that it may be a token statement, and delivered to a cheap and nasty design.

There are several ‘shared user’ underpasses and pathways proposed. This is only viable for those users if the paths are generously wide and use paving colour and texture to segregate the user type, rather than an inadequate strip of concrete or tar.

3. Expensive way to build resilience in the network

Page 3-11 justifies the Project on the basis of a 2016 peak-hour crash on the Harbour Bridge. The Beaches Link won’t solve a crash on the Harbour Bridge. And even if it could, $14b is an incredibly expensive way to address a occasional major delays. If the State were to invest a fraction of that into public and active transport serving the Northern Beaches the network will gain resilience by the reduction in private motor vehicles on the road.

4. Unfiltered exhaust stacks

The levels of airborne toxins from other similar tunnel projects greatly exceed recommended health levels. The Balgowlah unfiltered smoke stack is within less than 500m to a number of schools and day care centers including Balgowlah Boys (not included as a community receptor for modelling, despite being within 300m and overlooking the exhaust stack), Seaforth Public, St Cecilias, North Balgowlah Public, Punchinello Kindergarten and others.

The Balgowlah exhaust stack is particularly problematic as it is located at a low point in the valley, meaning exhaust emissions will be distributed over homes and schools on the hills around it. This includes the tall apartments at Stockland Balgowlah, homes in Ellery Pde Seaforth, Woodbine St North Balgowlah, Maretimo St Balgowlah and everyone in between. Not only will thousands of residents be exposed to increased pollution levels, they will have a daily visual reminder of that fact.

5. Environmental concerns

Burnt Bridge Creek will be severely impacted, removal of Balgowlah Golf Course, Manly Dam impact on flora and fauna, dredging of middle harbour and release of toxins into the harbour which the EIS report has identified and will travel to nearby recreation spots such as Clontarf reserve.

6. 7 years of construction

The Balgowlah golf course and Kirkwood Street, Seaforth will be construction sites. From the EIS report there will be over 3000 vehicles entering and exiting every day of construction, which equates to 1 large truck every minute. This comes with heavy diesel exhaust, as well as trucks idling and creating queues to get in and out of the site. The main intersection around the site which is already extremely busy will suffer even longer and heavy delays. The sites will also host a large number of workers; hundreds of people will arrive in the early hours and need parking for their own vehicles, potentially on local streets and residents have no authority to stop them.

7. Impacts of tunnelling

The EIS estimates that 853 properties in Seaforth / Clontarf will experience noise from tunnelling, and 325 properties in Seaforth/Clontarf will experience vibrations. Cracking is inevitable.

5. Rat-runs

Changes to traffic patterns as a result of the Beaches Link tunnel are projected to significantly increase delays on local roads and intersections including Condamine Street at Manly Vale / Balgowlah, Sydney Rd and Warringah Rd / Wakehurst Parkway, despite recent road upgrades. These delays will encourage rat-runs on smaller local streets, increasing travel times and making local streets more dangerous.

I strongly object to this proposal and do not believe that other viable transport solutions have been thoroughly investigated. The Project should be put on hold until other less disruptive viable solutions are properly investigated.

I object to the construction of the beaches link tunnel.

The project needs to be halted and reassessed.
1. The traffic data needs to be analysed for start and end of journey. I travel fairly regularly over Spit Bridge and Roseville Bridge and would therefore be included in the busy/congested road corridor figures on p E-2 of the EIS. However, I am visiting a family member who lives in Mosman or I am going shopping in Chatswood. I would not be requiring the use of a Beaches link tolled tunnel yet my travel usage is being used to warrant the need for one.
2. The underpass at Frenchs Forest is now in use possibly changing driving routes
3. The B line has been introduced which may have taken cars off the road
4. Many more people are working from home which may have taken cars off the road
5. Cutting travel time to the airport will not be a priority for several years. Additionally in future there will be 2 airports thus diluting airport travel in any one direction
6. In the big scheme of things the proposed cost of this project is not cost effective. It is not fair and equitable to the NSW public to spend these billions of dollars for the number of Northern Beaches residents that may use this tolled tunnel, (Public monies at this time would be better spent on getting cars off the road, better public transport and not cutting services, building a trainline to Canberra and other regional towns.
7. The Beaches link tunnel is not a best practice solution to solving any traffic hot spots and congestion when the EIS has shown that there will be devastating destruction to the environment (too many to address point by point!), the eyesore of 4 unfiltered stacks. Loss of 41 homes, the list goes on.
8. The beaches link does not solve congestion within the Northern Beaches itself. It is interesting to note that since the implementation of the underpass at Frenchs Forest, Traffic has now started to backup Northbound at the Wakehurst Parkway/Warringah Road junction. The proposed tunnel exit on Wakehurst Parkway at Seaforth will further exacerbate this new congestion spot. More reason for a re-analysis of the data and current situation
9. Public transport users will continue to use Spit Bridge and Military Road as it has been noted that the tunnel will not have a transport lane. The Bline has cut travel times to the city thus the proposal that the tunnel will take traffic off the road and will reduce public transport travel times is invalid.
10. The tolls will prohibit many drivers from using regularly, encourage rat runs and more traffic on local roads.
11. The project actually encourages car travel by not providing public transport alternatives to alleviating congestion and hotspots.

In addition, I object that the EIS is too complex and lengthy for the average time poor member of the public to tackle and provide a submission. The December/January exhibition timeframe favours a low submission response rate along with little promotion of the project. I only knew about needing to send a submission from reading social media. There are many members of the public that will have no idea of what this project entails. Many posts I read on local social media pages indicate that the public would prefer to see better pubic transport options (light rail, tram, metro) which are more forward thinking.

I object to this development as 390 trees will be lost at Flat Rock alone. There will be unfiltered emission stacks near schools, homes and playing fields. There will be contamination risks to both the marine and land ecosystems. This is important parkland for both animals and people in the local area.
I urge you to investigate alternative, including public transport.

I strongly appose the construction of the Northern beaches Tunnel for a great number of reasons, to many to list at this time. You will make your decision regardless of how many objections you read.
Lets be perfectly honest , would you trade a beautiful golf course and pristine land for a tunnel.I did not think so. But why would you care ,your not living next to the golf course. Im all for progress but this is not it. Ask most people around the area and the majority will all agree We Dont Want This Tunnel.
Regards Darren